Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
Jul 31, 2011 7:00am EDT
or hong kong or germany or britain or indeed canada, and believe when this historical episode is written, michael, they will lay the blame squarely on the part of the republicans and personally on john banenoehner particularly. we've known for ten years of the public, trade deficit. we looking at a bipartisan approach on that. you've had various commissions in that regard. what republicans decide to do, up the ante, accelerate things and have the fight now. what in effect did they do? use the debt ceiling. that means they're saying to the rest of the world, you know thathat $14 trillion? we may not pay the principle and hold the rest of the world ransom subpoena what did they get in return noor? remember here from s&p, $4 trillion of spending consults or revenue to bend the kurn down. when obama was talking to boehner a few weeks ago, we getting near that. now we don't have anywhere near a $4 trillion move at all. because bavor couldn't sell the revenue increases to the party. last we're holding the world to ransom. one more thing, michael. in that process, the politics are now poisoned.
Jul 31, 2011 8:00am PDT
, would be to look at country that is have been doing that already. britain is a terrific example. the government there has been cutting spending very, very sharply, and the result in the short term has been extreme contraction of the economy. >> but if you buy the paul krugman analysis, do you also agree with his point that this whole mess -- i can't think of a better word -- this whole mess has been portrayed as a bunch of immature, squabbling narrow minded politicians who can't get in the room and agree when the alternative analysis and certainly one krugman embraces, is it's the republicans and particularly the tea party faction that has been intransigent, has said no to trillions in spending cuts and the democrats and obama have moved quite a ways towards the gop position? >> i think that conclusion, that actually the terms of the debate have shifted far to the right is objectively the case. what's interesting to me, and we already saw it on the front page of "the new york times" today and this was alluded to in your panel, people are now saying, okay, in the post mortem phas
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)